Case 2402422/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P O’Brien v Mersey Eco Grants Limited (in creditors voluntary liquidation) — 2022
- Case reference
- 2402422/2022
- Decision date
- 29 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Parkin Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P O’Brien
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr P O’Brien presented his ET1 on 29 March 2022 after his employment with Mersey Eco Grants Ltd ended on 3 December 2021. At an earlier case management hearing, Employment Judge Feeney had identified possible claims including unfair dismissal, unlawful deduction from wages for pay and holiday pay, breach of contract/notice pay, and disability discrimination, and ordered the claimant to particularise any automatic unfair dismissal, whistleblowing, or disability amendment points and to provide medical evidence. The claimant did not comply with those orders and made no further contact with the Tribunal or the respondent.
The claimant did not attend the preliminary hearing and was not represented. The Tribunal accepted the evidence of the respondent's Chief Executive Officer, Mr Craig Stewart, as true and accurate. That evidence confirmed that the dismissal was by telephone on 3 December 2021, that the claimant's probationary period would have expired on 6 December 2021, and that the final payment was made on 3 December 2021 before the respondent's monthly pay process had been put into operation.
Applying the statutory limitation provisions, the Tribunal held that all claims were out of time. It calculated that the ordinary three-month period would have expired on 2 March 2022, but after discounting 21 days of Early Conciliation between 20 January 2022 and 9 February 2022, the relevant deadline became 23 March 2022. The ET1 was presented on 29 March 2022, six days late.
The claimant gave no evidence and no case on why it was not reasonably practicable to present the unfair dismissal, breach of contract/notice pay, and unlawful deduction claims in time, and no case that it would be just and equitable to extend time for the disability discrimination claim. The Tribunal therefore dismissed the unfair dismissal, breach of contract/notice pay, unlawful deduction from wages, and disability discrimination claims for want of jurisdiction.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal treated this as an unparticularised possible automatic unfair dismissal claim; the claimant had not complied with case management orders or shown that it was presented in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The claim was pleaded as breach of contract/notice pay and was dismissed for want of jurisdiction because it was out of time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The reasons describe this claim as covering pay and holiday pay deductions; it was dismissed for want of jurisdiction because it was out of time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The disability discrimination case remained general and unparticularised, including an issue about access to attics via ladders and the claimant's back condition; time was not extended. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
9 references- not reasonably practicable test
- just and equitable extension
- s.111(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Article 7 Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994
- s.23(4) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- s.207B(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Cygnet v Britton [2022] EAT 108
- Robertson v Bexley Community Centre [2003] IRLR 434 CA
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.